Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Chelco

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    363

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Chelco

    mini-AAR on MOUT

    in CMSF Strategy and Tactics Forum

    Posted

    1st Plt is on point for Alpha's Co and receives a warning order to clear the irregulars from their positions north of the intersection . Enemy strenght is suspected to be platoon level. UAV surveilance has been kept on that area and no further movement was detected. Indirect fires are prohibited until new orders.

    1st Plt is composed of 3 squads of Bradley IFV mounted infantry.

    CMSFAAR1_Plan.jpg

    Graphics overlay for the upcoming action. The boundaries for the platoon are indicated by lines. Buildings 11 and 21 are clear of enemy troops. (Note how I screwed the building numbering, should have used counter-clockwise numbering, doh!)

    0

    mini-AAR on MOUT

    in CMSF Strategy and Tactics Forum

    Posted

    I need to get a grip on CMSF's MOUT. I assembled this tiny and quick scenario to help me with that and I wanted to share with you how it went.

    The fictional story behind the scenario goes like this:

    Two hours ago, battalion level reconnaissance assets were advancing along a fictional highway (route red) when their left flank was attacked by irregular troops. The enemy harassed the reconnaissance column with machine gun, RPG and even ATGM fire. One vehicle was lost, but as per its SOP the reconnaissance column avoided becoming decisively engaged and continued moving along its route.

    CMSFAAR1_UAVIntel.jpg

    An UAV reconnaissance picture of the ambush area. The smoke column in the highway comes from a destroyed US reconnaissance vehicle. Irregular troops are suspected to be hiding in the road that runs perpendicular to the highway (diagonally from right to left in the picture).

    [ August 11, 2007, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Chelco ]

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

    I wholeheartedly agree that present-paper-covered crap is still crap and hard to say five times fast as well. And yes, you have have the right to share your thoughts but I think the point was in the thread that there was too much venting and not enough discussion. However, once again that is a matter of interpretation. And you are certainly not the most aggregious poster by a long shot - if that opinion matters.

    Indeed your opinion matters to me Darren. Point well taken here.

    I just don't have time to write right now, so I will e-mail you later if you don't mind.

    Gotta go!

    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

    I believe this is an example of the kind, well thought-out defense of the product as opposed to the vicious attacks of the less than satified.

    Darren, nice post.

    I'm not defending the game. It has its flaws I reckon. Also, there are not vicious attacks anywhere, just a complete inability to let go.

    Either that or a certain Chelco is the chair committee that preserves the holy grail of wargaming.
    I appreciate your sense of humour but I don't think we are reading the same forum. Darren, are you aware that there are people out there telling BFC how to (or not to) design games? Have you read things like "this is computer game, not a wargame"? Not me.

    Sigh: this is what I mean about silly ass posts flaming people who don't agree with you.
    One example in 200+ pages of things. Big deal. After all I read, I have the right to vent my crap too.

    How could it have been written? Hmm. "I think some folks here think grog means overly attached to superfluous detail instead of actual significant information. Professionals in the simulation field and in the military are quite supportive and applauding of BFC's current product. Those who continue to complain are coming across as childish and self-centered and must accept that they are not the only adjudicators of wargaming quality and innovation. While I would happily share social time with you, I must state that I reject your views on this game and the industry as a whole. (I can't think of a nice way of saying that I know what you think so shut up). Just a quick alternative.

    Thanks for the effort in embelishing it. Still prefer my words. I'm too old to disguise what I really think. I hope you don't mind if I think that if you are throwing present-paper-covered crap at somebody is still crap.
    0

    Gamespots crappy 4.5 review..

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by dalem:

    Maybe an irrelevant point, but, you know what struck me the other day?

    Two weeks into the game and I haven't seen a single grog thread. I don't count the big Stryker threads because their discussing big theory there, not the nuts & bolts.

    Where's the "M9 Beretta Overmodeled?" thread, with somebody posting "My CP got overrun and the CO dropped 9 Syrians with his sidearm! That's strange." With 20 links to "proof" that the M9 sucks and 20 links to "proof" that the M9 rocks?

    Yeah, I know, we have something different now -guys who have actually done it. Recently.

    But still. No grogs. Odd, ain't it?

    -dale

    Ah, give me a break!

    Let's take off the masks fellas!

    Grog, what grogs? The ones who would discuss 10 pages of threads about if the PzIII should have the number 13 in the cuppola painted white or light blue while happily let go a game mechanic that was basically combat chess?

    That's not grog, that's hardware fetish fed with Amazon books.

    I've seen people that make military grade simulations for a living giving praise to the game. I've seen people who have been in the military giving good feedback too. Are they kiddie-clickfesters too? Are out there bigger and better grogs than the ones who held the real weapons and rode the real machines of a state for a living?

    You should stop acting like you are the center of the universe.

    How many of you are calling BFC for a "soul searching" and "going back to your roots"? 25? 100? Don't fool yourselves: you may be visible and vocal, but you are just a fraction of the market. Don't self-appoint yourselves as the chair commitee that preserves the holy grail of wargaming. I would share my tootbrush with any you rather than to agree to the convoluted pseudo-logic you use to cover the bitterness from the realization that the train has left without you this time.

    This game is clearly not for you. I already know what you think. Time to let it go.

    Edited for ESOL.

    0

    Hunt command...

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Zipuli:

    "To solve this: have you tried a bounding overwatch?"

    Of course I have. But my problem is not bounding overwatch but the way the squad on point trying to get in contact with the enemy has no way of doing it in a clever way. Even if I had the whole platoon in good overwatch positions and the squad advancing on point takes fire and then does nothing to preserve their lives I end up with a dead squad - of course few seconds later the platoon mows down the enemy, but too late for the squad that could not A) return fire and B) take cover in the terrain (meaning not only to go belly-down on the ground, but perhaps sprint the 2 meters to take pos behind that wall...)

    Zip

    PS. Never said anything about CM1 hunt command, did I? [/QB]

    Ey Zip,

    I hear you. LOL on the hunt command!

    Please don't take me wrong, my questions asked in good faith, since I want to learn too. After all you are the soldier in this discussion! smile.gif

    But anyway, here is what I do: point squad split into two fire teams. Bounding overwatch with those two fire teams. If there is any spotting to do, has to be done with the overwatch fire team. The fire team moving is not expected to provide too much spotting at all, and is moved from cover to cover on "quick" orders.

    0

    Isn't Veteran the more realistic approach as far as in-game Intel?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by thewood:

    Friendly FOW tells what that particular unit can see. There are several minor implications to this, friendly fire being important, but also affects your abilty for a platton commander to issue orders in formation order.

    I don't know how extensive is the friendly FOW in elite difficulty. You can just click in the map and all friendly positions will be revealed to you, no matter if they have a comms link with the HQ unit.
    0

    Scenario Editor: Triggers?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by thewood:

    It seems, to me at least, that everything is time based. Am I missing something. I think that is why some of the scenarios seem screwed up. I you get outside the intended schedule of the scenario designer, the AI is porked.

    I was surprised to read was that in order to make the AI more aggressive you have to issue an "advance" order instead of "assault". That's something I want to try. But I think we will need more in depth documentation for the scenario editor.

    The TacAI is an unknown quantity to me right now. This morning I created a map/scenario: a US platoon (no vehicle support) in high ground trenches overlooking open terrain in where two reinforced platoons of Republican Guards advanced. The Syrians had tanks and BMPs at their disposal. I cranked the Syrians skill and leadership to the top. Still they would not attempt to avoid the massacre and use an obvious covered route on their side (created that route on purpose). Two things were cool, however: (i) as the Syrians advanced they appeared to be using overwatch; (ii) at certain point in the battle the Syrians brought the BMPs closer to the trenches and mauled my platoon really bad.

    The tanks never left their deployment positions, but when I reviewed the map, the tanks were out of the C2 structure, so maybe they didn't even get orders from the TacAI at all.

    I will keep trying.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...